About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14
to help the citizens of new york, new jersey, and other parts of the northeast as they recover from the damn of hurricane van dihurricane sandy. as we did before, we have an opportunity to help maim make families and communities whole again. i hope my colleagues will join in moving quickly to send aid to those affected by sandy as they continue to recover and rebuild. the senate must move swiftly to approve supplemental disaster aid and act to give the intelligence community the stools tools it needs to -- the tools it needs to keep our nation safe before the christmas holiday. before we leave for chris marks we'll have to finish our work on sandy and fisa. they're both extremely important, but they have to be completed. so everyone should understand we have that to do, and it appears at this stage we'll see if anything changes -- but it appears that we're going to be coming back the day after christmas to complete work on the fiscal cliff and a few other leftover items. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i want to start by extending my deepest sympathies to the families of the victims o
we would address it together. >> mr. cook do you have any incumbent new york city in different approaches is that cultural between the two regulatory bodies? >> i can't speak to the cftc statute but one of the reasons it drove us to the rulemaking in the context is that we look at the data, and in our market the security based market most transactions involve a party that isn't in the u.s.. so this is a cross border market. and how you do the cross border roles is how you do title seven. and so, we felt under those circumstances that when you are looking at the whole, it was important to take a holistic approach the cross border rules and because it was such a significant, had such a significant impact on how they were going to work that we needed to do a formal rulemaking. >> to mr. cook, thank you. i know i am out of time. i'm comfortable with what mr. cook is doing because of the data that you're going to collect. mr. gensler, it makes me a little nervous and particularly because of the different approaches. you know, and there are so many other questions i want to get to. b
, puerto ricans in new york and chicago who are very liberal, but we're starting to see the rise of foreign-born latinos and their children who tend to be more conservative. i mean, just look at the pew numbers. on abortion still the majority believe that abortion should be legal compared to about 40% of the rest of the population. marriage, that is shifting. it has certainly shifted in the past five years, but there's still a good chunk of that electorate that is very conservative when it comes to, to marriage. the question is with social issues is not are you going to scare voters away. we believe that those who vote exclusively for those issues are going to vote, are mostly religious people who are going to vote for the candidate who has the traditional positions. nobody's not going to vote against the candidate because of their position of marriage within the latino community. >> right. it's scary to me because it is a place where we're not looking, again, we're not looking to the future. as a republican, we're counting on the older ones and not looking to how the vote is going to chang
this columnist for "the new york times" is brilliant in writing. he's a great, great journalist and explains things so well. i really have great admiration for him. he wrote yesterday, "republicans have to realize they are going to have to cave in on tax rates." that's the way it is, mr. president. "they're going to have to cave on tax rates." then on tuesday, day before yesterday, the senior senator from maine, olympia snowe, urged house republican leaders to end the suspense for middle-class taxpayers. "they shouldn't have to wonder whether we will ultimately raise taxes on low- to middle-income people." i assure them we won't raise taxes on the middle class on the poor, is what ow olympia snowe said. yesterday it seemed every practical republican left in washington was suddenly willing to say out loud what we have known for weeks: the only remaining option is for the house to pass the senate bill. dozens of house republicans signed onto a letter urging speaker boehner to take the last hexit before the cliff. neither president obama nor democrats in congress have ever been ambiguous about
for us. in the spring we experienced late freezes in michigan and new york and pennsylvania that wiped out fruit crops. a lot of small family farms, farms in northern michigan wiped out. in my home state late freezes in the spring caused cherry producers to lose practically their entire crop right off the bat. it warmed up, the buds came out, then they had a deep freeze; killed everything. our growers produce 75% of the u.s. supply of cherries. that's around 270 million pounds. and the cherry producers experienced 98% loss. now in our amendment, in the disaster bill and in the farm bill, we give them some help because they spent the rest of the crop year this year having to pay to maintain the orchards and the frees, eating the costs and hoping the trees will bounce back next year and produce a crop. so they have all the costs of maintaining everything but no revenue coming in. cherry producers were also forced to fight spreading diseases like cherry leaf spot and bacterial tinker, making the trees even more costly to maintain and at risk of loss. they didn't just lose their crop this
to helping new jersey and certainly new york as well and the region, recovered. because you know, when we had hurricane katrina in the gulf coast in mississippi and alabama and louisiana, i was there. when we had tornadoes in joplin missouri, i was there. when we had flooding along the mississippi, i was there. when we had crop destruction in the midwest, i have been there because i believe this is the united states of america. and so i fully expect that now that for the first time we have a type of devastation that other should understand and we are going to have to type a response that others have to see. so i would like to get a sense of view as the type of commitment this administration has. >> senator, thank you for the eloquent remarks about this. as you know, this is a region i too have roots in. to use your term, i married up, i married a jersey girl and work in new jersey and new york and besides the personal commitment i feel, i have also seen a president who was on the ground, in new jersey and almost immediately has done everything he can to help in the short term and has given me
officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: madam president, we saw what happened here, the minority leader filibustering his own bill. he should have trusted his first instincts. imagine if we would have passed the minority leader's resolution. the markets would have been jubilant. stocks would have gone up. one of the great specters hanging over our economy that we wouldn't raise the debt ceiling would have greatly mitigated in terms of damage and danger, and we could move on to the real issues of dealing with the fiscal cliff and dealing with our debt situation and not have a debt ceiling hanging out there as a diversionary but dangerous issue. but for some reason, inexplicable, the minority leader, the republican leader, changed his mind. now, he said on the floor well, important measures deserve 60 votes, but when he brought it up earlier, he acted as if he was in favor of it, he was offering it. and now, of course, essaying no, he's going to object to his own resolution. i wish he would reconsider. again, playing -- using the debt ceiling as leverage, using the debt ceiling as
somebody that's about to set off a nuclear bomb in the middle of new york city or something like that, you know, in order to be compelling. well, you know, the argument is that if you use racial discrimination in college admissions, um, it's likely that there will be somewhat more of unrehearsed, interracial conversations among students and that the african-american kids and the latino kids, you know, who get these preferences are going to say something to the white kids and the asian kids that is, just has overwhelming, compelling educational benefits for them. that's it. s it is a what -- that is what the university of texas is arguing. that is the exception to the principle of nondiscrimination that the supreme court has recognized. okay? now, i think that's ridiculous. and, indeed, you know, the reason the court, you know, buys this is because there are social scientists out there who say, no, it's true, it's true. it really happened. now, increasingly these educational benefits -- which, you know, make only marginal improvements to education, you know, at best, are disputed. you know,
piece in "the new york times" i think at the beginning of last week for the week before about the next genocide being against allowites, and that fear is present among the community members and so what you are talking about is just an extension of that and the way around it is the political solution the longer the violence goes on, the more extremist groups benefit and based on what we have seen of no sort of parent organization, al qaeda and iraqi will not be merciful at all so it is incumbent on us to bolster what in the political opposition which is what we are trying to do. >> thank you, ambassador woo-hoo when you say the regime is numbered is that proverbial or do you mean days? and more broad, as you pointed out at the outset, the then studied peacefully but later on we saw international forces get involved and the europeans and the gulf arabs what mechanisms do you foresee for the future of serious of the interest of the syrian people do not get overwhelmed by the interest of these outside forces. the direction of the events on the ground, the direction is very clear when the d
. election officials in new york and new jersey, just can't imagine the level of stress and how much hard work they had to go through. and i applaud them for the heroic effort they did to even put any kind of an election in place on those days. you have polling locations, websites that have the locations. all of a sudden the week before every single polling place -- how do notify somebody? that goes be on my level of expertise but i think it showed that wasn't issue. i went to the sector estates website and they told me to show by polling place and it was under water. and the sector estates office they're doing a lot of good work in terms of trying to direct people. we're trying to help them. we had to open up to other call centers to take new jersey calls. it was a 128% increase. we did a lot of work with her niece the a system that works in normal time didn't. especially when you emergency changes in polling places. clearly there needs to be better emergencies in prepared as. were have strong by the law but both states, almost every voter -- you have an excuse to vote absentee. there's
come from a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, like massachusetts, like new york, know what the state has to recognize that marriage. and it won't be recognized by any federal purposes, for example, social security. there has been a challenge to the constitutionality of that at -- that act. the court of appeals upheld it unconstitutional. the review has been filed in the supreme court. we haven't acted on it yet but it would be extraordinary for the court to act, to consider the constitutionality of a law passed by congress that a lower court had held unconstitutional. so i think it's most likely that we will have that issue before the court, toward the end of the current term. and then the person who asked the question will -- [inaudible] have the answer. >> another question comes from the auditorium. the lilly ledbetter case, one where you wrote a very emotionally charged dissent, that you, as i recall, read from the branch a game binge -- read from the bench, which is a rare act. and you reflect on that and also how it felt to have literally your request in the dissent, t
the idea of get steam rolled by high-population states. for example, california and new york or illinois. but that's exactly what these senate rules changes would allow. this isn't just some wild supposition on my part. the majority leader himself said the filibuster -- and i'm quoting here -- "is a unique privilege that serves to aid small states from being trampled by the desires of larger states." he went on to say -- and i'm quoting again -- "it's one of the most sacred rules of the senate." of course that was a few years ago, before he proposed to do the very thing that he is now -- that he has criticized. he now appears ready to undermine the most important rule, not by a two-thirds vote as clearly required by senate rule 22, but by a simple majority fiat. this contradicts long-standing practice and disregards the 67-vote threshold that president lyndon baines johnson said -- quote -- "he preserves indisputably the character of the senate." this is the same so-called nuclear option that democrats previously decried as breaking the rules to change the rules. for example, the senior
jersey or new york, they get to decide. not the appropriators, not the authorizing committee, the cor corps's going to decide. well, i can tell you one organization that has a problem with priorities in this country today is the corps of engineers. and to blanket whatever they say as a priority versus having government oversight and committee oversight and appropriator oversight, by giving this blanket waiver, what we do is we take away our powers to correct them. and all this does is say that it's not automatically authorized and we will have plenty of time. because all these are mitigation projects. they all ought to be authorized and approved by the committee of jurisdiction as they go forward. all they have to do is come to congress and say, give us approval on this. rather than a blanket approval. and i think we're setting a terrible precedent, because what it says is, in the future, then we're going to let the corps decides what is important rather than the -- corps decide what is important rather than the governors, rather than the state legislature or rather than the congress.
as an example. so let's just understand in this body so that there's no mistake that new york and surrounding areas will get their money because the principle of fema money and probably other disaster money as well is simply this -- at the beginning of a year, you have some money in fema, but you never know what the disasters are going to be throughout the next 12 months. but when a disaster is declared, there is money there to flow, and when that disaster money runs out, as far as i know, it's always been replaced. whether you have an earthquake in california or you have a hurricane in the gulf of mexico or you have drought in the midwest like we have or texas like we have or you have tornadoes like we have in the midwest, and sandy as the most recent example. as far as i know, there has never been any dispute under the laws at that time, and those laws don't change very often. they -- they do get the money out to the people that need it, and then when that fund goes dry, it is replenished by congress. now, unless somebody is seeking money other -- in some way other than other disasters that
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14